+Sultan WELL WHEN I ATE IT, IT KILLED MY FUCKING FISH AND THAT FISH COST LIKE, WHAT 300$... and the spaghetti escape...creating chaos across the city, seems ur lucky
The "problem" with GMOs is simply about perception. Every single time I talk about GMOs with friends or family the conversation ALWAYS devolves into ridiculous conspiracy theories about corporate greed. The problem with societal acceptance of GMOs isn't that GMOs are dangerous or "unnatural", it's that most people refuse to think rationally and only listen to information they already believe in.
+robert Peterson You said, "people refuse to think rationally"... Well given the limited source of facts and that people always want to take a position on something it is impossible to think rationally. The rational position is to simply say, there isn't enough evidence to support one position or the other.
There are dozens upon dozens of studies that show that GMOs aren't any more harmful than "natural" foods. You seemed to have missed the second half of my sentence when I said that people only listen to information that they agree with. It is not "rational" for a person to be presented contradictory evidence to what they already believe and dismiss it without a moment's thought. This is what it means when someone "refuses" to think "rationally". It's perfectly fine for someone to rationally consider contradictory evidence and THEN dismiss it, but most people simply don't do that. Instead, they scoff and tell you to shut up....right before they tell you that Monsanto is evil while refusing to acknowledge that Monsanto isn't the only company that is working with GMOs. There is no thinking involved in this train of thought, only lizard-brain reaction. Sorry...but there truly isn't a "limited source of facts" on GMOs as you claim....there are indeed LOTS of sources of facts on GMOs...but people don't want to listen to them, let alone read them.
Robert Peterson I have no real position on GMOs. I actually like things like hydroponic gardens which are anything but organic. So please don't brandish anger or distain at me as if I'm fighting you on that issue. I was saying it is hard to get facts because: 1. the companies are constantly reworking the formulas, 2. they closely hold the patents which prevents open research, 3. Research takes time a study can last a decade, 4. if we are looking for long term effects that could be decades 5. companies DO create counter studies (junk-science) to try and protect their asses, see big-tobacco, 6. Organic growers have just as much to gain by buying studies that support their side 7. The corporate faces of GMOs like Monsanto can shade opinions and thus the science on the issue. Now do you find fault in my logic for parts 1-7? The reason why I say that there are "limited source of facts".
"Junk science" isn't science and is always labeled as such, therefore the scientific community ignores them. The problem is that the public doesn't ignore them and the "evening news" doesn't ignore them and spreads fear, which takes us all the way back to my original point that the "problem" with GMOs is people's perceptions of them. And GMOs foods aren't always the ones "grown in a lab"....cultivars have changed "natural" foods for the last several hundred years through selective breeding. And yes, selective breeding is indeed the same as "lab-produced" GMOs, because both systems are trying to select for certain characteristics while simply utilizing different methods. Every tomato you've ever eaten is a selectively-breed cultivar that was "invented" no more than 100 years ago (most less than 60 years ago) and there are almost no "natural" tomatoes left in existence. It's the same for corn: every bit of corn you've ever eaten in the entirety of your life is not "natural corn"...it's a cultivar bred to be bigger, tastier, more vibrant in colour and more attractive to consumers in every conceivable way. Most people don't know that cauliflower, brussel sprouts and broccoli never existed in nature until humans selectively bred them from cabbage plants. I always laugh when an anti-GMO person talks about "natural foods" while stuffing broccoli into their mouths...they simply don't know that they're ignorant about so many things and they CERTAINLY don't know that they're actively stuffing a GMO into their face. But nobody gets upset at broccoli or those types of GMOs...people instead get upset at "lab-produced" GMOs...because their perceptions tell them that science is inherently "evil"...with zero evidence to back up their assumptions. In fact, "lab-produced" GMOs are actually safer for human consumption more than selectively-bred foods for the simple reason that the desired characteristics are focused and always come out in the plant, while selectively-breeding plants leaves the changes to chance and it's why a selectively-bred squash or carrot can look like a mutant. (Just to expand on this fact: roughly 60% of all food produced by farming is thrown in the trash and never sold because it "doesn't look the right way"...they only sell the "good looking" food. There are efforts in many countries to change the attitudes of distributors to allow the sale of "mutant looking" food so that we don't waste so much of it...which basically means that people will need to get used to eating carrots that are "funny looking". Conversely...."lab produced" GMOs would ensure that the chances of "mutant looking food" would be minimized, due to the controls put in place.) www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/10/half-world-food-waste And regarding your point about the "corporate faces of GMOs like Monsanto"...that's really only half of the problem. The real problem is that there is a massive string of "anti-science" permeating most of western societies where you get dirty looks for even saying the word "science". Again...back to my original point: it's a perception problem. And again...Monsanto is not the only company that creates GMOs....and the dozen companies that create them aren't all evil...even though you'd have a hard time convincing anyone of this. And for the record: there has never been a single verifiable case in history where ANYONE died from eating GMOs....not one single person. But if you ask an average person, they'd probably believe that GMOs kill people by the hundreds. Not only is the average person ignorant of the scientific facts about GMOs (and a billion other scientific topics) but they simply have no interest in even discussing them. They'd rather talk about what they need to buy from the hardware store or their favorite sport. Anti-science...it is a real problem in the world. It's why people are terrified of GMOs, it's why people believe vaccines cause autism and it's why people get nervous and reflexively distrust any person they see in a lab-coat. And I am not "brandishing anger or disdain at you"...I am talking in a serious, no-bullshit way about a serious, no bullshit topic. Sorry you took it that way. I speak this way about all things related to "reality" versus "perception".
People freaking out about GMOs makes no sense. We've been selectively breeding our food for thousands of years to get desirable traits. Why is it all of a sudden bad now that we can do it in days or even hours?
Rowan McMullan I didn't mean cross breeding. Most GMOs are used to make food bigger and more nutritious. Selective breeding doesn't have to mean cross breeding. Corn was bred to be bigger over generations from a tiny grass for example.
+MegaDragoz it's when we start going into gmo that, without a science lab, would otherwise not be possible or at least feasable. But I think it's mostly about a lack of education, a lot of marketing, and basically what Trace said - how things make us instinctively feel, being at the "root" of it all. (Couldn't help myself.)
What "real science"? Real science recognizes GMOs as perfectly safe. The scientific consensus about GMO safety is as clear as it is about climate change. The only "science" you'll find that says GMOs are bad is shady papers by crooks like Séralini.
illyounotme I suggest _you_ stop drinking activists' Kool-aid and referencing activist websites promoting quacks like Séralini or Carman. Their research is seriously flawed and designed with a biased conclusion in mind; and they try to defend it by smearing all the other research. Sorry but that's not how it works. They claim independent research is blocked; then what were all those independent studies testing; candy cane? 10 years of EU-funded studies were just twiddling their thumbs? The National Academy of Sciences were also blocked by evil Monsanto I suppose? It's just laughable.
illyounotme I don't need to refute their work; the scientific community did: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637 www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2986 www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/Pages/Detailed-commentary-.aspx www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/11/13/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/ And seriously, at this point, citing Séralini as a credible source is laughable.
illyounotme Have you actually examined the Séralini study or just stopped at what you wanted to read? Your response implies the latter. It was _not_ blocked as he claims; it was retracted because it's a steaming pile of shit, a propaganda piece tailored to stir controversy. Why do you think he sent it to only one media prior to publication, with the condition that they don't consult any experts about it? Because he knew it would have been debunked. He's a master manipulator and the French media laps it up. I concentrated on Séralini and Carman because those are the cases I know the best; and the article you gave gives credit to them without question, which seriously undermines its own credibility.
GMO's, in a chemical sense, are completely natural. Only organic molecules are produced by the organism, exactly if it were unmodified (because that's the only way they can grow...), which our bodies are designed to digest, so nothing is harmful (I speak from actual understanding of the process). Genes are simply taken to change the behaviour of the crop or specimen for bigger and higher quality product yields. What *is* harmful is more so some farming practices, which applies to both 'natural' and GMO alike, such as pesticides which are absorbed by crops.
+sky Ninja speaks I think it is Monsanto which has give GMOs the terrible reputation. Their trucks drive by other farms and seeds fall of the trucks to sprout up on those farms. Monsanto then sues those farms into bankruptcy for stealing. It is just the anti-monopoly movement misdirected.
they never sue without evidence, only one very public example of a farmer that had way too much gm crops for it to be a fluke, that farmer most liekly purposfully planted the seeds illegally
The issue with GMOs is mainly with genetically engineered (GE) corn because every cell of the GE corn plant produces its own pesticide and is specifically engineered to withstand massive amounts of biologically destructive toxic chemicals aka the herbicide Roundup. This GE corn is know as "Round-up Ready" corn. Monsanto is trying to make it sound like there's a debate over GMOs when really it's just about their deadly corn species. This DNews video is attempting to reinforce the notion that the laymen are too ignorant to know facts, as if we'll believe we are dumb if we are told that we are dumb enough times; Monsanto's/Dnews' subtle message: "Submit, obey, conform, and consume, and most of all, QUIT Whining and die." The GMO debate needs disambiguation via focus on the effects of a pesticide-laden/producing crop, e.g. leaky gut, tumors, and mental effects. as opposed to hybridization for better survival in NATURAL conditions (i.e. no use of neurotoxic poisons). The "Organic" label on food has nothing to do with the "Natural" label as DNews would lead you to believe. The "Natural" label can be applied to a wide variety of highly processed foods while "Organic" means that strict regulations in sustainable agriculture and end-product consumer concerns are taken into account. Buying Organic is not about "feeling good", it's supporting what you believe in while denying support to those who spread lies and poison (i.e. all companies that spent millions to prevent GMO labelling on food packaging to allow consumers to make an informed decision e.g. Muir Glen whom I urge you to boycott). Don't believe everything you hear on DNews.
h7opolo Lol. No you don't. BT corn is what has it's own insecticide, but it's not in the part you eat it's in the stalk. Roundup resistant corn has nothing to do with insecticides. It's resistant to an herbicide. And for the record, roundup resistant crops use less herbicides than conventional crops, and BT crops use less pesticides than organic crops. Yes organic crops use pesticides, and the pesticides used in organic farming are MORE TOXIC than what's used on conventional or GM crops.
Morgan Day. I don't think that's true about BT corn. Some BT should also be produced in the ear. It's not a problem. I've personally eaten lots of BT corn and the protein is very digestible. Future biotech crops will have tissue specific promoters, but it's unnecessary for BT. Furthermore, There are organic pesticides that are more toxic, but the majority of organic pesticides are pretty benign. Just as a fair characterization of the system. All pesticide residue is magnitudes below any NOEL or safety concerns on produce (according to the USDA) Forgive my intrusion.
Also GMO's are more reliable than cross breeding plants. Cross breeding has the possibility to trade over something like this food kills pets instead of this food grows faster. Not a risk with GMO's, just my two cents though
because yo could want a plant's resistance, but it also has poisonous part's, and trading gene's could mean the poison goes to the other plant. With modern gene mixing, or gene splicing, you can find and take the specific part you want and transfer it to the other plant, no danger of bad DNA being switched.
plants can very easily become toxic threw traditional breeding. many of our crops were domesticated from wild relatives that produce toxic compounds. early humans simply selected for the non-toxic ones.
It says a lot that the process that is most feared in fact creates the most accuracy in creating changes without unintentionally creating undesirable changes and that those cultivars created by this process then are the most tested for safety compared to the others created in the other processes. Reproduction and mutations without human intervention - Who knows what you have till you eat it. First human intervention method: Cross breeding plants - very labor intensive and can still result in good transfers, but maybe some negative transfers. Second human intervention method: Radiation and caustic attacks on DNA is random and requires a lot of labor generating many failures to achieve a few successes. Much of what we have today is the result of radiation and mutation experiments like something out of a 1950's horror movie. Third human intervention method: GMOs. We have finally achieved accurate changes - and some people freak.
If GMO foods were proven safe then why does the industry invest hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure you don't know the food is genetically modified? Also, it's not the food itself that causes harm, it's the pesticides and chemicals used on it that does the harm. The genetic modification is done so that these chemicals can be used on the crops without doing harm to them but these same chemicals will cause harm to a human that ingests them.
There have been studies done around the world that link these foods to bad things. Some countries have even banned GMO's completely. Can you guys make a video on those studies?
may I ask an important question all those who love whole foods.How do you know their food is really natural or non GMO have any if you been to their farms. or you just believe it because they say so?
+Etimfon Bassey that's a myth. they make enough for the planet 2X over. if that was the case WHY did they FORCE so many small local farmers out of business?
+Brandon Avery we know GMO's aren't bad for us because there have been numerous studies around this issue. Science tells us there is nothing wrong with GMOs. Then there's people like you who just go off of the crap you hear from media and bullshit from blogs on the Internet. We know they're not bad for us because of facts.
+Robert jensen numerous studies? Who conducted these studies? What are the facts you speak of, and where did they come from? If you notice he said in the video, "there has been hundreds of papers" that say this. If it's that broad I guess me and you could've conducted those studies. Idk. I'm just curious? Also you don't know where I get my info.
@@robertjensen5553 Scientist even tells us that they cause problems in the environment primarily. They do cause some harm to humans but does not kill us for now. What is bad is that we can't save seeds from it, we have to buy it. We can debate about Natural is and what is not, but when it comes to seed as a source of life, if it is not a gene occurring in nature, they will be damage done. If you want to believe other people, Good Luck.
Big Agro is the problem. I'm also not against GMOs for a variety of scientific reasons - and because food is food. Ethically, I don't think anything has been written on it within the scientific community. I am not a fan of pesticide use. Indoor localized farms (multi-tiered and climate controlled) would reduce the use of pesticides completely and the need for GMO's created specifically for the purpose of surviving it. Some things we have created (like GMO salmon) require a closed contained environment. Germlines do require some protection, so they can evolve 'naturally'.
R u for real? Have u ever really looked into Monsanto. And I don't grow my own food but I no that eating a real peice of organic fruit does alot more for me than sprayed crap. I could eat 20 non organic apples to 1 organic and I can tell u the difference in me. Way more energy just feeling better in general and better mood. If that doesn't say anything I don't know what does.
i feel more ethical by eating GM food. Organic food is needless luxury. I'd rather buy lettuce made in a local vertical farm than out in the land. Sure, taste will be different but that simply comes down to nutrients available in the soil. Those same nutrients can be used in artificial methods.
Not sure if you know, or how are things in the US, but in west EU vegetables and fruits are so tasteless and plasticy- you can _easily_ distinguish those bread for high yield in as small spaces as possible, to those actually grown naturally.
People have a right to know what they are eating . I have started growing and raising my own food. That way I know what I'm eating and not fish corn or pesticides or an animal that lived a horrible life in a small cage or a dirt lot most country's will not import food from us because of GMO . I know people will say I'm crazy and that's okay because I will not buy into GMO . Their are framers that have done experiments on cows feed some GMO the other grass. The GMO cattle's organ's were dis colored and shriveled . You do what you want I wont poison my self.
My problem with GMO is mainly related to 2 point. 1. GMO seeds are generally monopolized by a company for profits which can be dangerous not just for poor farmers in poor countries, but also it can lead to death of any other species of that food (as only one variety is being planted). Natural selection would come to halt and we might face situations similar to what we have with bananas today. 2. It is a grey area for me who is strictly vegetarian. Introducing lets say a gene of some animals to make plant more resistant or producting etc. It will be devastating for me. As i would be not knowing if i should classify it as vegetarian or not.
You have to keep in mind that these are companies if one has bad product, farmers will go to supplier that doesn't have bad products. They loose money if they have bad products. So there is potential for abuse, but the hypothetical doesn't make sense in the market economy.
I don't eat GMOs beacause they directly support companies like Monsanto who have a huge monopoly on the world's food production. It destroys farmers' from all over the world from being able to have their own seed and makes them dependent on huge corporations (almost always Monsanto). I don't eat GMOs because they are almost always designed to be pesticide resistant because if they put all those toxic chemicals on an organic version it would die. Those pesticides are toxic to humans as well and research has shown it accumulates in our bodies and can lead to things like cancer. #Dnews why didn't you bring up the fact that many people who are anti GMOs are so because the people who ultimately benefit from GMOs are big corporations who are motivated by profit and that the problem with non-organic food is that they are dosed in pesticides. Trace, You should feel ashamed for not mentioning these points.
Mimi Pham why do people bring that up as if it's not common knowledge? I'm not talking about naturally crossbreeding plants to create things like bananas. Same with grapes. I'm talking about when they engineer plants to be pesticide resistant so that they can dose it in chemicals without it dying. The pesticides are absorbed into the plant and then if you eat it, into your body.
+Raven W really? Wow. So did you go to school to learn this are you just just pulling bullshit out of your ass based off of some article you read on Wikipedia? The pesticide is not "absorbed" into the plant... Luke you said it's engineered to not be affected by it. Also the majority of the changes are things like freeze resistance and longer periods of time without spoilage. There is a long list of reasons why GMOs are beneficial. Do more research bud.
i picked barriers and made it into a smoothie, its now considers processed. anything with multiple steps is processed. -_- smoothies don't grow on trees.
The problem with GMO's is VERY SIMPLE : and I quote the video, there are hundreds and hundreds of studies which have shown gmos are perfectly harmless BUT what is not sais is that EVERY.SINGLE.ONE study that was done indenpendantly did not even prove gmo's to be "bad" but purely desastruous! The fact is, you grow gmo's in your garden, take them out and next year you wont be able to grow normal crops again, because the soil is dead. GMO's is not food grown in a lab, the result of genetical engineering (GE) is that those foods have completly alien dna in them. We simply dont understand dna enough to make plants better and thats it, gmo's food are actually so bad, insects and bees fucking die if they eat those plants. THAT says everything. Oh and we musn't forget that those "hundreds and hundreds of studies that prove gmo's are harmless" have been done by gmo themselves OR people who work subsidairy companies of monsanto OR people who worked for monsanto like a few months or years prior only to be fired or move to another company then perform a study and conclude gmo's are harmless. No my friends, those people never left monsanto. Some people even got killed in this faking business, do your fucking research for yourselves you lazy cunts, most of you just come here on youtube and follow some retarded people like the dude in the video to the letter or are satisfied with completly simplistic explanations such as gmo's are foods grown in the lab. WELL FUCK NO, its SOOOOO much more than just growing food in a lab!!!
I agree! I do support organic farmers!! I'd love to see us scale up organic farming and return to having more farmers as a percentage of the workforce so we can displace and eventually eliminate GMOs altogether!
You're going to feed a growing world of 9 billion with an average of 37% decreased yield? journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
+Thomas Baldwin the chemical industry does promote the idea that it can't work without the chemicals. It requires more effort and good soil care taking practices but the efforts are worth it. Cuba was the good example where because of the collapse of Soviet Union and economy circumstances, they could no longer afford the chemicals. They were forced to go organic or close to it. At first the transition was difficult because of lack of knowledge. But now their yields are better than before and what they are doing is being recognized as having great value to the whole world. Today's chemical model is unsustainable as the pests are resistant and the soil conditions are rapidly deteriorating. The chemical industry is harming the world using gov't, legal, and misinformation tricks. Our society needs to put proper value to the things most important to our long term survival like healthful and sustainable food.
Are you suggesting the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Georg-August-University of Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany is a chemical industry? Data is fresh from 2014 with similarity numbers coming from the USDA for 2015. Thanks for trying, but you still have a huge lag in yield.
thats still a pretty american opinion. The long term effects of GMOs are not understood (since human genome will adopt to the food we eat) and even if its fully risk free, GMOs from their target design lead to monocultures and consequently a loss of biodiversity. And the loss of biodiversity is one of the biggest risks mankind faces atm. Monsantos GMO corn that had a natural defence against locusts was a huge failure cause the insects adapted way faster than any one ever imagined. Yes GMOs can help to solve the hunger crisis etc. but trusting all those industry payed research papers and rushing in implementing a technology, that has unknown interactions with our ecosystem, is just shortsighted and stupid (aka american ^^)
While I agree with your statements about potential unintended adaptation, lack of biodiversity being an issue, and most of all: the scientific papers with a conflict of interest, it does not mean that ALL GMOs are bad, only that some more oversight and robust scientific research is needed. It would be foolish to not use a tool that can potentially benefit humanity just because of blanket statements and irrational fears.
+Good Sense Oh please. Their comment was hardly anti-American. I'm American and I agree that many Americans (just like people of other nationalities) can be short-sighted and stupid. Sometimes the truth hurts.
any company can put natural on their food product, but if they put organic there should be higher standards. "...products with the USDA organic seal meet consistent, uniform standards. Our regulations do not address food safety or nutrition. "
All I want to know is about the foods that have had pesticides added to them through GMO, ARE they still safe to eat or are we eating poison and not realizing it. Some pesticides have cause birth defects and sterility in people/animals and since this kind of GMO is new we may not have tested the long turn affects enough.
I dont care whats "natural" or not. I care about whats APPROVED by regulation. If you want to talk natural,a lot of so called natural foods are so small and poor in nutrients that you wouldnt get anything from eating them.
Some time ago, I had heard of an American study that concluded how GMO's aren't inherently more dangerous than other foods, but also how they are not the holy grail either. Unfortunately, I can't remember who had conducted the study or what the research was called, so take my comment as you will.
Fun fact, I heard from a person who works in a factory that packs frozen vegetables. First they pack normal frozen vegetables, later they switch to other bags that say BIO vegetables but they use the same vegetables.
The food we eat is modified but we have to get into it and understand what is done and test the product. Theoretically we could modify a food to become poisonous, fast growing but poisonous. Wheat, corn, vegetable, animals all are modified. Exceptions could be some items like fish.
I suppose what people mean by "natural" is that the food was the result of breeding over decades rather than direct genetic tampering. Unfortunately, disease has been evolving at such a pace that it's more practical to have GMOs than anything that took time to breed. Which makes me think. If you are what you eat, and you eat GMOs, does that make you a GMO yourself?
Goodness, I've been saying this for years now. At least people are more willing to watch videos than actually having discussions with other human beings.
Isn't the debate about GMOs more about who owns the patents (big agro) and who gets screwed (family farms) by cross pollination of those GMO plants rather than an ear of corn turning you into the Hulk or a quivering puddle of dead gelatin? The health concerns are red herrings and designed to appeal to emotion rather than logic.
It all depends how you define "genetically modified". This video seems to use it a lot but doesn't actually stick to one definition of it. Genetically altering a plant cell in a lab is different from cross breeding two species of the same genus. I work as a farmer and know very well the difference between a hybrid seed, an heirloom seed, and a gmo seed. They are all different and were engineered differently. Hybrid plant species are NOT the same thing as a genetically modified organism.
I personally believe this whole video, and many more like them are designed to blur the lines between the different designations of food, each classification is very different. Looking at GMO, Non-GMO, Natural, and Organic... we should understand that Non-GMO does not equate to Organic, and Natural does not equate to Non-GMO, and Natural... has very little governing over it beyond the application process to apply it to your packaged food. Please understand that every comment on these videos are not always just that individual's viewpoint, often they are placed there to ultimately create YOUR viewpoint, or at the very least revise it.
"Natural" is a totally meaningless term and is about to be banned from food labeling. Our foods stopped being 'natural' when we began breeding activities over 10,000 years ago. So you can eliminate that one. Perhaps what you meant was conventional, meaning modern non-GMO and non-organic. Most of our foods still fall under that category today.
Using gm within the same kingdom/species seems ok, like rice with rice but when you start adding genes from other species, than that seems a little more complicated/wrong
Good example danceluver156 but I am curious. Another thing I hear is that they are less nutritious? Like making them more resistant to pesticides and such takes away energy from building nutrition
Other plants have attributes that make the plant more versatile and more efficient because some plants of the same species do not have these attributes, they need to get them from a different plant.
I assume most would say "Natural" food would be any food that is healty and does not contain hazardus substances that some food might contain that is "placed inside" by humans for specific reasons (to last longer, etc). In other terms natural might be just any food that is taken from garden without any additional processing after that (excluding cleaning it with water). But that might be less healthy in some cases, that proccessed food. So, yea... People just dont want toxic stuff in their food. Simple as that.
Being anti-GMO is pretty much the same thing as being a creationist: deeply held set of beliefs that do their best to distort or reject contradicting evidence with fallacies and emotions to keep their own beliefs alive. I don't understand why they're so afraid of being wrong.
I am getting crazy when I think about these things. I don't know what to eat, I don't know what is safe, what is good to me... where to find organic products... Oh my god!!!
I don't think we should use GMOs for most of our food supply. Reasons are: - No Transparency: the general public doesn't get informed about the modifications - There are several controversial modifications (antibiotic/ pesticide resistances) --> more cemicals in foodchain -->see silent summer precedent case - The free market seems to force more farmers to buy GMOs, but often the plants are not able to reproduce --> dependant on companies - We still don't fully understand the long term effects. --> What if the reproduction inhibitor gene somehow gets (through unintended crossing) into many other plants? Things like the saved Papaya and drought-resistant rice are very positive. I still don't like the big companies that produce the GMO seeds, bacause they actively try to undermine scientific studies in this area. This is for example very obvious in the TED-Monsanto-agreement.
Natural and not is the wrong question. This is a typical example of politics and social norms getting stuck when we ask the wrong question. The real question is: Is this healthy for us and the environment? *That's* when you can start to have a real debate about all this.
Why? Because you drank some bullshit artist's Kool-Aid and now you are having to come to terms with recognizing your own irrational biases? Don't be so hard on yourself. For a lot of people, It's easy to get sucked in to the conspiracy world and it hurts people's feelings when they find out that they fell for a line of crap. Just learn from it. Really look at what you are saying and thinking and simply be prepared to show your work. Actually look at the science and the facts instead of letting others tell you how to think or feel or react. Be skeptical but remember what that word really means in practical terms as it applies to the real world.
Simon WoodburyForget Again, I don't disagree. I think we are trying to teach people how to use their brains properly but it's a case of swimming against the current and that frustrates those of us who have a few more tools in our brainbox than most others. Academia is always fighting against the clan. Humans are still very tribal and that still leads to suspicion of those who say different from what the tribal gut reaction or tradition is. It's those regressive influences that must be overcome and it's a slow and grinding process... but, on the bright side, that task is becoming easier thanks to the arrival of the information age and it is accelerating so I am optimistic.
GMOs are probably safe, but you didn't touch on the moral issues, you brushed over agri-businesses questionable practices and you didn't mention the impacts of GMOs on genetic diversity. Those are some key reasons for the campaigns against them.
just eat what you want to all of the gmos are studied carefully in a lab and natural food is studied carfully in nature you chose what enters you're body and that's that
What's your basis for claiming GMOs are studied carefully in a lab? If by lab, you mean it's just released to the public and then scientists study the humans like guinea pigs, then yes, it's studied carefully in the "lab". Don't fool yourself into thinking the food industry or its regulators are being careful to protect the public.
+Jayyy Zeee no gmos have Ben around sense the late 19 hundreds so yes they have Ben studied so they have also Ben studied but now that the public finally knows about it they have just begun to study it a little more into depth
There is a huge difference between crops that are bred in a controlled setting to like species over time in order to achieve desirable results, and crops that have their genes spliced to unrelated species in a way that could never happen in nature. Why do you think there has been such an upswing in food allergies and other intestinal ailments over the last decade.
The only problem with GMO's is that I don't trust 2 or 3 companies producing all our food. Put in some laws to make them less powerful and abide by the government (which isn't corrupt) and I am all for it. Besides, with our every growing population (because anti conception doesn't exist in asia, middle east and africa) we need to yield more food from less energy input.
The only problem I have with GMOs is Monsanto and how dirty their business practice can be. People who are afraid of GMOs need to do research and not be so closed minded
Tighten the meaning of gmo, restrict any foods with seeds that can't be regrown and your done for now. also even "organic" can be non heritage food meaning it can't be regrown which doesn't seem organic to me.
I'm totally fine with genetically modified food so long as they are tested to still provide the same or higher levels of vitamins our bodies have evolved with.
Ok so GMO food is ok, but what effect go GMO crops have on bio diversity? One of the nice things about organic foods is that you get a wider variety of fancy produce, like purple potatoes and multi-colors carrots or kale and heirloom tomatoes... I don't think we've created GMO variants of those crop species, so should we be worried about those species of crop becoming extinct in favor of GMO'd super crops? Also, what's up with tomatoes that rot from the inside out? You get seeds sprouting from within a tomato that otherwise looks fresh.
i feel like a year ago there was a lot more people against GMO's, it's nice to see people have come around and are arguing in the comments for them, i feel like it used to be just me and a handful of other people
Everyone's an expert again in the comment section. I personally am PRO GMO. How many people have been saved from starvation by these modified food? Food are made affordable and available because of genetic modification too. What I'm against is these greedy corporation trying to control GMO.
I think the crux of the issue is very few multinational corporations controlling the broad food chain by holding the patents and not allowing anyone to use the seeds and technology without their permission. If the govt's take control of these things, probably crony capitalism would not be able to exploit the poor farmers and thereby regulating the whole supply chain.
Your post is false we have had patented seed both gmo and no gmo for 48 years. They do not exploit farmer! Farmers like me all over the world overwhelmingly freely choose gmo technology seed if that is an option.
@@Kj73908 nothing you eat is in its natural state, everything has been altered by humans for millenia. Genetic engineering is no different. This is how our crops look in their wild state: 66.media.tumblr.com/76606753f4d2a884d678f9c93c71f6d7/tumblr_n7lww3Ajnx1s6r1vho1_1280.png
GMO's is a nuanced issue, and being that most people think in reductive partisan black/white terms such nuance makes their heads explode. Fact is some GMO's may be fine for your health, some may not. Consumers need strong non-partisan research and oversight so as to be able to make well informed decisions on such an important issue.
Food is good. Food is food. Letting one negative stereotype predominate any kind of thinking, like: gmo causes disease, is the beginning of the end of our culture. Gotta see both sides to the club & see how they react whether by proofs or correaltions.
You forgot to mention BANANA'S. The banana's we have today are not actually real banana's. Real banana's died couple decades ago because of a disease before we knew of it, so they had to create a mutant to replace it.
I didn't think that "Organic eating" would be the next religion.
8 лет назад
My only concern on these 2 questions: 1. Is it possible for a Corporation, to manipulate food at a level that will harm or manipulate humans for the Sake of profit? 2. Is there a difference between crossing species like we did with dogs and some flowers (just by cross breading species) and Genetically modify (in a LAB) an animal or fruit? if there is a big difference, then I think people will have a clear difference between Natural and GMO
8 лет назад
***** Thank you for your answer, I think most people fears are not about the Technology but the Human greed that can mess up things for the sake of profit, and Monsanto for example has been accused of lots of things
Ok, so for question 1) It's not that they are manipulating food to harm humans for the sake of profit, but manipulating food to get the greatest yield possible for the greatest profit, using methods that were developed independently over the 19th and 20th century. I cannot speak to the politics of it however, and any scientist would prefer to keep politics ad money away from science. 2) There essentially isn't a difference. Its genes from one species, put into another. We tend to forget that DNA and the genetic code is universal across all organisms. Genes code for proteins that confer certain traits such as resistance against low temperatures. Put that gene in an organism, and it may express the gene and become resistant to low temps. Thats essentially how insulin is synthesized by bacteria. The human insulin genes are inserted into a vector, then transformed into bacteria, who express the genes and create human insulin protein for us. Furthermore, this method has been occurring in nature for millions of years in both single celled and multicellular organisms by a process called horizontal gene transfer, where segments of DNA can essentially be picked up by an organism from its surroundings, or inserted by a virus or another bacteria, almost exactly like how we do it in the lab (thats where we got the method from). Horizontal gene transfer takes traits from one species, like antibiotic resistance, and puts it in another organism to confer that trait.
8 лет назад
Prof. Potato Thank you for the answer, I didn't new much of the topic :-)
for me natural means if you take seed from plant and grow something from that same seed without changing its dna and adding stuff to soil and let it grow naturaly...problem is that when people plant seeds they always add fake compost and shit like that next to seed....that is not NATURAL...thats just chemistry shit. Food that we eat now taste like shit and is not even close to food that i ate 10 years ago. I can still remember smell and taste of fresh tomatoe from garden and fresh eggs from chicken that i used to eat every morning as kid....we never used salt or spices on food, but now u have to put ton of shit just to get any flavour on food....this world is fucked up.
another thing that I feel I've encountered in these online debates on GMO's that a lot of ppl do not have a good understanding of what they are, and want to include these human breed livestock, and produce with these laboratory DNA modified things. it's actually something I'd like to see more on.
![BAK Jay - Find Out (For Your Love) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/10FJO_XBCvY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Chlöe - Shake (Feat. Jeremih) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aDs_1ufpfv8/mqdefault.jpg)
I ate some spaghetti yesterday but it sprouted tentacles and crawled away from me.
well least u didnt die ;D
+Cyka Blyat Die? Of course not; the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a caring and benevolent deity.
+Sultan WELL WHEN I ATE IT, IT KILLED MY FUCKING FISH AND THAT FISH COST LIKE, WHAT 300$...
and the spaghetti escape...creating chaos across the city, seems ur lucky
+Cyka Blyat YOU WOULD EAT THE SACRED SPAGHETTI? You only have yourself to blame
For what happened. >:E
lizard genes added.
The "problem" with GMOs is simply about perception. Every single time I talk about GMOs with friends or family the conversation ALWAYS devolves into ridiculous conspiracy theories about corporate greed. The problem with societal acceptance of GMOs isn't that GMOs are dangerous or "unnatural", it's that most people refuse to think rationally and only listen to information they already believe in.
Thanks for proving my point.
+robert Peterson
You said, "people refuse to think rationally"...
Well given the limited source of facts and that people always want to take a position on something it is impossible to think rationally. The rational position is to simply say, there isn't enough evidence to support one position or the other.
There are dozens upon dozens of studies that show that GMOs aren't any more harmful than "natural" foods. You seemed to have missed the second half of my sentence when I said that people only listen to information that they agree with. It is not "rational" for a person to be presented contradictory evidence to what they already believe and dismiss it without a moment's thought. This is what it means when someone "refuses" to think "rationally". It's perfectly fine for someone to rationally consider contradictory evidence and THEN dismiss it, but most people simply don't do that. Instead, they scoff and tell you to shut up....right before they tell you that Monsanto is evil while refusing to acknowledge that Monsanto isn't the only company that is working with GMOs. There is no thinking involved in this train of thought, only lizard-brain reaction.
Sorry...but there truly isn't a "limited source of facts" on GMOs as you claim....there are indeed LOTS of sources of facts on GMOs...but people don't want to listen to them, let alone read them.
Robert Peterson
I have no real position on GMOs.
I actually like things like hydroponic gardens which are anything but organic.
So please don't brandish anger or distain at me as if I'm fighting you on that issue.
I was saying it is hard to get facts because:
1. the companies are constantly reworking the formulas,
2. they closely hold the patents which prevents open research,
3. Research takes time a study can last a decade,
4. if we are looking for long term effects that could be decades
5. companies DO create counter studies (junk-science) to try and protect their asses, see big-tobacco,
6. Organic growers have just as much to gain by buying studies that support their side
7. The corporate faces of GMOs like Monsanto can shade opinions and thus the science on the issue.
Now do you find fault in my logic for parts 1-7?
The reason why I say that there are "limited source of facts".
"Junk science" isn't science and is always labeled as such, therefore the scientific community ignores them. The problem is that the public doesn't ignore them and the "evening news" doesn't ignore them and spreads fear, which takes us all the way back to my original point that the "problem" with GMOs is people's perceptions of them.
And GMOs foods aren't always the ones "grown in a lab"....cultivars have changed "natural" foods for the last several hundred years through selective breeding. And yes, selective breeding is indeed the same as "lab-produced" GMOs, because both systems are trying to select for certain characteristics while simply utilizing different methods. Every tomato you've ever eaten is a selectively-breed cultivar that was "invented" no more than 100 years ago (most less than 60 years ago) and there are almost no "natural" tomatoes left in existence. It's the same for corn: every bit of corn you've ever eaten in the entirety of your life is not "natural corn"...it's a cultivar bred to be bigger, tastier, more vibrant in colour and more attractive to consumers in every conceivable way. Most people don't know that cauliflower, brussel sprouts and broccoli never existed in nature until humans selectively bred them from cabbage plants. I always laugh when an anti-GMO person talks about "natural foods" while stuffing broccoli into their mouths...they simply don't know that they're ignorant about so many things and they CERTAINLY don't know that they're actively stuffing a GMO into their face.
But nobody gets upset at broccoli or those types of GMOs...people instead get upset at "lab-produced" GMOs...because their perceptions tell them that science is inherently "evil"...with zero evidence to back up their assumptions. In fact, "lab-produced" GMOs are actually safer for human consumption more than selectively-bred foods for the simple reason that the desired characteristics are focused and always come out in the plant, while selectively-breeding plants leaves the changes to chance and it's why a selectively-bred squash or carrot can look like a mutant. (Just to expand on this fact: roughly 60% of all food produced by farming is thrown in the trash and never sold because it "doesn't look the right way"...they only sell the "good looking" food. There are efforts in many countries to change the attitudes of distributors to allow the sale of "mutant looking" food so that we don't waste so much of it...which basically means that people will need to get used to eating carrots that are "funny looking". Conversely...."lab produced" GMOs would ensure that the chances of "mutant looking food" would be minimized, due to the controls put in place.)
www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/10/half-world-food-waste
And regarding your point about the "corporate faces of GMOs like Monsanto"...that's really only half of the problem. The real problem is that there is a massive string of "anti-science" permeating most of western societies where you get dirty looks for even saying the word "science". Again...back to my original point: it's a perception problem. And again...Monsanto is not the only company that creates GMOs....and the dozen companies that create them aren't all evil...even though you'd have a hard time convincing anyone of this. And for the record: there has never been a single verifiable case in history where ANYONE died from eating GMOs....not one single person. But if you ask an average person, they'd probably believe that GMOs kill people by the hundreds. Not only is the average person ignorant of the scientific facts about GMOs (and a billion other scientific topics) but they simply have no interest in even discussing them. They'd rather talk about what they need to buy from the hardware store or their favorite sport.
Anti-science...it is a real problem in the world. It's why people are terrified of GMOs, it's why people believe vaccines cause autism and it's why people get nervous and reflexively distrust any person they see in a lab-coat.
And I am not "brandishing anger or disdain at you"...I am talking in a serious, no-bullshit way about a serious, no bullshit topic. Sorry you took it that way. I speak this way about all things related to "reality" versus "perception".
People freaking out about GMOs makes no sense. We've been selectively breeding our food for thousands of years to get desirable traits. Why is it all of a sudden bad now that we can do it in days or even hours?
didn't he say that cross breeding doesn't count?
Rowan McMullan I didn't mean cross breeding. Most GMOs are used to make food bigger and more nutritious. Selective breeding doesn't have to mean cross breeding. Corn was bred to be bigger over generations from a tiny grass for example.
+MegaDragoz alright, misunderstood
Rowan McMullan It's fine. Things get misunderstood on the internet all the time.
+MegaDragoz it's when we start going into gmo that, without a science lab, would otherwise not be possible or at least feasable. But I think it's mostly about a lack of education, a lot of marketing, and basically what Trace said - how things make us instinctively feel, being at the "root" of it all. (Couldn't help myself.)
How much did Monsanto pay you guys?
sounds like monsanto script here!
fuck, it's all monsanto quotes..
What "real science"? Real science recognizes GMOs as perfectly safe. The scientific consensus about GMO safety is as clear as it is about climate change.
The only "science" you'll find that says GMOs are bad is shady papers by crooks like Séralini.
illyounotme I suggest _you_ stop drinking activists' Kool-aid and referencing activist websites promoting quacks like Séralini or Carman. Their research is seriously flawed and designed with a biased conclusion in mind; and they try to defend it by smearing all the other research. Sorry but that's not how it works.
They claim independent research is blocked; then what were all those independent studies testing; candy cane? 10 years of EU-funded studies were just twiddling their thumbs? The National Academy of Sciences were also blocked by evil Monsanto I suppose? It's just laughable.
illyounotme I don't need to refute their work; the scientific community did: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2986
www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/Pages/Detailed-commentary-.aspx
www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/11/13/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/
And seriously, at this point, citing Séralini as a credible source is laughable.
illyounotme
Have you actually examined the Séralini study or just stopped at what you wanted to read? Your response implies the latter.
It was _not_ blocked as he claims; it was retracted because it's a steaming pile of shit, a propaganda piece tailored to stir controversy. Why do you think he sent it to only one media prior to publication, with the condition that they don't consult any experts about it? Because he knew it would have been debunked. He's a master manipulator and the French media laps it up.
I concentrated on Séralini and Carman because those are the cases I know the best; and the article you gave gives credit to them without question, which seriously undermines its own credibility.
GMO's, in a chemical sense, are completely natural. Only organic molecules are produced by the organism, exactly if it were unmodified (because that's the only way they can grow...), which our bodies are designed to digest, so nothing is harmful (I speak from actual understanding of the process). Genes are simply taken to change the behaviour of the crop or specimen for bigger and higher quality product yields.
What *is* harmful is more so some farming practices, which applies to both 'natural' and GMO alike, such as pesticides which are absorbed by crops.
I only eat all natural organic arsenic.
I love the smell of bitter almonds in the morning.
,
There's nothing wrong with GMO intrinsically.
ikr? it's the same as if it had the bad gene like it did before. Makes me wonder if any of these people passed a basic Bio class in 9th grade.
+Sky Ninja Speaks agreed
+sky Ninja speaks
I think it is Monsanto which has give GMOs the terrible reputation.
Their trucks drive by other farms and seeds fall of the trucks to sprout up on those farms. Monsanto then sues those farms into bankruptcy for stealing. It is just the anti-monopoly movement misdirected.
they never sue without evidence, only one very public example of a farmer that had way too much gm crops for it to be a fluke, that farmer most liekly purposfully planted the seeds illegally
Harvey Rabbit That's pretty fucked up if they actually do that.
See the problem with this debate is that "Natural" isnt a way to measure something its too vague and really means nothing.
this video was sponsered by monsanto
My thought exactly 🧐
The issue with GMOs is mainly with genetically engineered (GE) corn because every cell of the GE corn plant produces its own pesticide and is specifically engineered to withstand massive amounts of biologically destructive toxic chemicals aka the herbicide Roundup. This GE corn is know as "Round-up Ready" corn. Monsanto is trying to make it sound like there's a debate over GMOs when really it's just about their deadly corn species. This DNews video is attempting to reinforce the notion that the laymen are too ignorant to know facts, as if we'll believe we are dumb if we are told that we are dumb enough times; Monsanto's/Dnews' subtle message: "Submit, obey, conform, and consume, and most of all, QUIT Whining and die." The GMO debate needs disambiguation via focus on the effects of a pesticide-laden/producing crop, e.g. leaky gut, tumors, and mental effects. as opposed to hybridization for better survival in NATURAL conditions (i.e. no use of neurotoxic poisons). The "Organic" label on food has nothing to do with the "Natural" label as DNews would lead you to believe. The "Natural" label can be applied to a wide variety of highly processed foods while "Organic" means that strict regulations in sustainable agriculture and end-product consumer concerns are taken into account. Buying Organic is not about "feeling good", it's supporting what you believe in while denying support to those who spread lies and poison (i.e. all companies that spent millions to prevent GMO labelling on food packaging to allow consumers to make an informed decision e.g. Muir Glen whom I urge you to boycott). Don't believe everything you hear on DNews.
Nothing you said is true, and you are confusing herbicide resistant crops with pest resistant crops. You don't know what you are talking about.
I agree and disagree. Monsanto is evil/immoral, GMOs are not inherently bad for you, pesticides are harmful to you.
Morgan Day There is no confusion in my comment. I do know what I'm talking about.
h7opolo
Lol. No you don't. BT corn is what has it's own insecticide, but it's not in the part you eat it's in the stalk. Roundup resistant corn has nothing to do with insecticides. It's resistant to an herbicide. And for the record, roundup resistant crops use less herbicides than conventional crops, and BT crops use less pesticides than organic crops. Yes organic crops use pesticides, and the pesticides used in organic farming are MORE TOXIC than what's used on conventional or GM crops.
Morgan Day. I don't think that's true about BT corn. Some BT should also be produced in the ear. It's not a problem. I've personally eaten lots of BT corn and the protein is very digestible. Future biotech crops will have tissue specific promoters, but it's unnecessary for BT.
Furthermore, There are organic pesticides that are more toxic, but the majority of organic pesticides are pretty benign. Just as a fair characterization of the system. All pesticide residue is magnitudes below any NOEL or safety concerns on produce (according to the USDA)
Forgive my intrusion.
Also GMO's are more reliable than cross breeding plants. Cross breeding has the possibility to trade over something like this food kills pets instead of this food grows faster. Not a risk with GMO's, just my two cents though
why would natural breeding case a plant to suddenly kill pets?
because yo could want a plant's resistance, but it also has poisonous part's, and trading gene's could mean the poison goes to the other plant. With modern gene mixing, or gene splicing, you can find and take the specific part you want and transfer it to the other plant, no danger of bad DNA being switched.
not even remotely true.
plants can very easily become toxic threw traditional breeding. many of our crops were domesticated from wild relatives that produce toxic compounds. early humans simply selected for the non-toxic ones.
It says a lot that the process that is most feared in fact creates the most accuracy in creating changes without unintentionally creating undesirable changes and that those cultivars created by this process then are the most tested for safety compared to the others created in the other processes. Reproduction and mutations without human intervention - Who knows what you have till you eat it. First human intervention method: Cross breeding plants - very labor intensive and can still result in good transfers, but maybe some negative transfers. Second human intervention method: Radiation and caustic attacks on DNA is random and requires a lot of labor generating many failures to achieve a few successes. Much of what we have today is the result of radiation and mutation experiments like something out of a 1950's horror movie. Third human intervention method: GMOs. We have finally achieved accurate changes - and some people freak.
Yes be skeptical about all things, but don't let cynicism erode your mind to the point where nothing is true.
If GMO foods were proven safe then why does the industry invest hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure you don't know the food is genetically modified? Also, it's not the food itself that causes harm, it's the pesticides and chemicals used on it that does the harm. The genetic modification is done so that these chemicals can be used on the crops without doing harm to them but these same chemicals will cause harm to a human that ingests them.
well said
Thank you for tackling this topic. Scientific illiteracy and fear of change are at the root of the anti GMO movement.
There have been studies done around the world that link these foods to bad things. Some countries have even banned GMO's completely. Can you guys make a video on those studies?
Answer: Not in America
i really dont think we should be stating gmos are 'safe' until actual broad human testing is done, not just papers that are sponsored by monsato.
may I ask an important question all those who love whole foods.How do you know their food is really natural or non GMO have any if you been to their farms. or you just believe it because they say so?
I can say the same to you. How do you know GMO'S aren't bad for you? Did you go to the farms or do you just believe it b/c they say so?
+Etimfon Bassey that's a myth. they make enough for the planet 2X over. if that was the case WHY did they FORCE so many small local farmers out of business?
+Brandon Avery we know GMO's aren't bad for us because there have been numerous studies around this issue. Science tells us there is nothing wrong with GMOs. Then there's people like you who just go off of the crap you hear from media and bullshit from blogs on the Internet. We know they're not bad for us because of facts.
+Robert jensen numerous studies? Who conducted these studies? What are the facts you speak of, and where did they come from? If you notice he said in the video, "there has been hundreds of papers" that say this. If it's that broad I guess me and you could've conducted those studies. Idk. I'm just curious? Also you don't know where I get my info.
@@robertjensen5553 Scientist even tells us that they cause problems in the environment primarily. They do cause some harm to humans but does not kill us for now. What is bad is that we can't save seeds from it, we have to buy it. We can debate about Natural is and what is not, but when it comes to seed as a source of life, if it is not a gene occurring in nature, they will be damage done. If you want to believe other people, Good Luck.
Big Agro is the problem. I'm also not against GMOs for a variety of scientific reasons - and because food is food. Ethically, I don't think anything has been written on it within the scientific community.
I am not a fan of pesticide use. Indoor localized farms (multi-tiered and climate controlled) would reduce the use of pesticides completely and the need for GMO's created specifically for the purpose of surviving it. Some things we have created (like GMO salmon) require a closed contained environment. Germlines do require some protection, so they can evolve 'naturally'.
Preston Smith, GMO contains pesticides, because it is not present in nature.
Food industry personnel chiming in to say people who think bad of GMOs are stupid :p
If we don't what are in gmo's then stop shipping it to supermarkets.
Thanks so can we now stop with the irrational fear of GMO'S ? great.
R u for real? Have u ever really looked into Monsanto. And I don't grow my own food but I no that eating a real peice of organic fruit does alot more for me than sprayed crap. I could eat 20 non organic apples to 1 organic and I can tell u the difference in me. Way more energy just feeling better in general and better mood. If that doesn't say anything I don't know what does.
i feel more ethical by eating GM food. Organic food is needless luxury. I'd rather buy lettuce made in a local vertical farm than out in the land. Sure, taste will be different but that simply comes down to nutrients available in the soil. Those same nutrients can be used in artificial methods.
Not interested in consuming round-up, in my vegetables. Yes, that's right, I said in, not on. You can't wash it off.
Not sure if you know, or how are things in the US, but in west EU vegetables and fruits are so tasteless and plasticy- you can _easily_ distinguish those bread for high yield in as small spaces as possible, to those actually grown naturally.
People have a right to know what they are eating . I have started growing and raising my own food. That way I know what I'm eating and not fish corn or pesticides or an animal that lived a horrible life in a small cage or a dirt lot most country's will not import food from us because of GMO . I know people will say I'm crazy and that's okay because I will not buy into GMO . Their are framers that have done experiments on cows feed some GMO the other grass. The GMO cattle's organ's were dis colored and shriveled . You do what you want I wont poison my self.
I guess its only a matter of time before parents can tamper with their kids genetics
My problem with GMO is mainly related to 2 point.
1. GMO seeds are generally monopolized by a company for profits which can be dangerous not just for poor farmers in poor countries, but also it can lead to death of any other species of that food (as only one variety is being planted). Natural selection would come to halt and we might face situations similar to what we have with bananas today.
2. It is a grey area for me who is strictly vegetarian. Introducing lets say a gene of some animals to make plant more resistant or producting etc. It will be devastating for me. As i would be not knowing if i should classify it as vegetarian or not.
do a video about bad gmos
There aren't any.
Only a small portion have been 'good' in any context. They do thousands of attempts hoping for each finally 'success'.
You have to keep in mind that these are companies if one has bad product, farmers will go to supplier that doesn't have bad products. They loose money if they have bad products. So there is potential for abuse, but the hypothetical doesn't make sense in the market economy.
All gmo meats XD
They did a bit at the end about it.
Blows my mind how you manage to get across so much information in just 5 minutes
I swear that a lot of people watch these videos for nice shirts.
There is no GMO tomato being sold anywhere.
I don't eat GMOs beacause they directly support companies like Monsanto who have a huge monopoly on the world's food production. It destroys farmers' from all over the world from being able to have their own seed and makes them dependent on huge corporations (almost always Monsanto). I don't eat GMOs because they are almost always designed to be pesticide resistant because if they put all those toxic chemicals on an organic version it would die. Those pesticides are toxic to humans as well and research has shown it accumulates in our bodies and can lead to things like cancer. #Dnews why didn't you bring up the fact that many people who are anti GMOs are so because the people who ultimately benefit from GMOs are big corporations who are motivated by profit and that the problem with non-organic food is that they are dosed in pesticides. Trace, You should feel ashamed for not mentioning these points.
If you have ever eaten seedless grapes or the modern banana, etc, you've eaten a GMO. I do agree with you on your opinion on Monsanto though.
Mimi Pham why do people bring that up as if it's not common knowledge? I'm not talking about naturally crossbreeding plants to create things like bananas. Same with grapes.
I'm talking about when they engineer plants to be pesticide resistant so that they can dose it in chemicals without it dying. The pesticides are absorbed into the plant and then if you eat it, into your body.
monsanto doesnt have a monopoly there are at least 6 other seed companies that compete with monsanto
+Raven W really? Wow. So did you go to school to learn this are you just just pulling bullshit out of your ass based off of some article you read on Wikipedia? The pesticide is not "absorbed" into the plant... Luke you said it's engineered to not be affected by it. Also the majority of the changes are things like freeze resistance and longer periods of time without spoilage. There is a long list of reasons why GMOs are beneficial. Do more research bud.
Thomas Baldwin 6 companies nationally or worldwide?
i picked barriers and made it into a smoothie, its now considers processed. anything with multiple steps is processed. -_- smoothies don't grow on trees.
Did you wash your berries with bleach, and add preservatives?
ya wanna know a REAL NATURAL food? moss. lichen. clover. honey from the hive.
na some bees are GM too... and what if natural Bees collect from GM crops? :D
@@nicholaschandler-yates5471 That is why GMO is not ok
The problem with GMO's is VERY SIMPLE : and I quote the video, there are hundreds and hundreds of studies which have shown gmos are perfectly harmless BUT what is not sais is that EVERY.SINGLE.ONE study that was done indenpendantly did not even prove gmo's to be "bad" but purely desastruous! The fact is, you grow gmo's in your garden, take them out and next year you wont be able to grow normal crops again, because the soil is dead.
GMO's is not food grown in a lab, the result of genetical engineering (GE) is that those foods have completly alien dna in them. We simply dont understand dna enough to make plants better and thats it, gmo's food are actually so bad, insects and bees fucking die if they eat those plants. THAT says everything.
Oh and we musn't forget that those "hundreds and hundreds of studies that prove gmo's are harmless" have been done by gmo themselves OR people who work subsidairy companies of monsanto OR people who worked for monsanto like a few months or years prior only to be fired or move to another company then perform a study and conclude gmo's are harmless. No my friends, those people never left monsanto. Some people even got killed in this faking business, do your fucking research for yourselves you lazy cunts, most of you just come here on youtube and follow some retarded people like the dude in the video to the letter or are satisfied with completly simplistic explanations such as gmo's are foods grown in the lab. WELL FUCK NO, its SOOOOO much more than just growing food in a lab!!!
Organic farmers work very hard to give you a healthful product. You should support them by buying all or nearly all organic food.
I agree! I do support organic farmers!! I'd love to see us scale up organic farming and return to having more farmers as a percentage of the workforce so we can displace and eventually eliminate GMOs altogether!
You're going to feed a growing world of 9 billion with an average of 37% decreased yield?
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
+Thomas Baldwin the chemical industry does promote the idea that it can't work without the chemicals. It requires more effort and good soil care taking practices but the efforts are worth it. Cuba was the good example where because of the collapse of Soviet Union and economy circumstances, they could no longer afford the chemicals. They were forced to go organic or close to it. At first the transition was difficult because of lack of knowledge. But now their yields are better than before and what they are doing is being recognized as having great value to the whole world. Today's chemical model is unsustainable as the pests are resistant and the soil conditions are rapidly deteriorating. The chemical industry is harming the world using gov't, legal, and misinformation tricks. Our society needs to put proper value to the things most important to our long term survival like healthful and sustainable food.
Are you suggesting the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Georg-August-University of Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany is a chemical industry?
Data is fresh from 2014 with similarity numbers coming from the USDA for 2015. Thanks for trying, but you still have a huge lag in yield.
@@Kj73908Hi. I'm free. You're here. lets have a chat online through google hangouts. You game?
thats still a pretty american opinion.
The long term effects of GMOs are not understood (since human genome will adopt to the food we eat) and even if its fully risk free, GMOs from their target design lead to monocultures and consequently a loss of biodiversity.
And the loss of biodiversity is one of the biggest risks mankind faces atm.
Monsantos GMO corn that had a natural defence against locusts was a huge failure cause the insects adapted way faster than any one ever imagined.
Yes GMOs can help to solve the hunger crisis etc. but trusting all those industry payed research papers and rushing in implementing a technology, that has unknown interactions with our ecosystem, is just shortsighted and stupid (aka american ^^)
I refuse to stand for or recite the pledge of allegiance yet your sanctimonious anti-American attitude disgusts me.
Say what you will about America, we're still ahead when it comes to scientific advancement.
The long term effects of eating most foods are not well understood so that's a pretty underhanded way to present the argument
While I agree with your statements about potential unintended adaptation, lack of biodiversity being an issue, and most of all: the scientific papers with a conflict of interest, it does not mean that ALL GMOs are bad, only that some more oversight and robust scientific research is needed. It would be foolish to not use a tool that can potentially benefit humanity just because of blanket statements and irrational fears.
+Good Sense Oh please. Their comment was hardly anti-American. I'm American and I agree that many Americans (just like people of other nationalities) can be short-sighted and stupid. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Go watch what david susuki has to say about gmo, he's a geneticist, and he's 100% oppose to the idea of gmo
no he's not. Where are his peer reviewed publications in top genetics journals?
Thomas Baldwin lmao omg don't you know he is geneticist by trade?
Thomas Baldwin he was professor in genetics for ubc from 1963 till his retirement in 2001
+MasterofPlay7 cite his peer reviewed publications
+MasterofPlay7 cite his peer reviewed publications
any company can put natural on their food product, but if they put organic there should be higher standards. "...products with the USDA organic seal meet consistent, uniform standards. Our regulations do not address food safety or nutrition. "
yay propaganda -_-
I'm curious why you feel this is propaganda, when it is completely inline with the current and substantial amount of science on the topic?
All I want to know is about the foods that have had pesticides added to them through GMO, ARE they still safe to eat or are we eating poison and not realizing it. Some pesticides have cause birth defects and sterility in people/animals and since this kind of GMO is new we may not have tested the long turn affects enough.
Lora, GMO is actually still a pesticide because it still designed to kill pests.
I dont care whats "natural" or not.
I care about whats APPROVED by regulation.
If you want to talk natural,a lot of so called natural foods are so small and poor in nutrients that you wouldnt get anything from eating them.
Some time ago, I had heard of an American study that concluded how GMO's aren't inherently more dangerous than other foods, but also how they are not the holy grail either.
Unfortunately, I can't remember who had conducted the study or what the research was called, so take my comment as you will.
i am not informed enough to make a rational decision.
Fun fact, I heard from a person who works in a factory that packs frozen vegetables. First they pack normal frozen vegetables, later they switch to other bags that say BIO vegetables but they use the same vegetables.
The food we eat is modified but we have to get into it and understand what is done and test the product. Theoretically we could modify a food to become poisonous, fast growing but poisonous. Wheat, corn, vegetable, animals all are modified. Exceptions could be some items like fish.
I suppose what people mean by "natural" is that the food was the result of breeding over decades rather than direct genetic tampering. Unfortunately, disease has been evolving at such a pace that it's more practical to have GMOs than anything that took time to breed.
Which makes me think. If you are what you eat, and you eat GMOs, does that make you a GMO yourself?
My definition of natural foods is simple: grown without synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or artificial light.
What about the most important ingredient...the unmolested seed
Goodness, I've been saying this for years now. At least people are more willing to watch videos than actually having discussions with other human beings.
Isn't the debate about GMOs more about who owns the patents (big agro) and who gets screwed (family farms) by cross pollination of those GMO plants rather than an ear of corn turning you into the Hulk or a quivering puddle of dead gelatin?
The health concerns are red herrings and designed to appeal to emotion rather than logic.
It all depends how you define "genetically modified". This video seems to use it a lot but doesn't actually stick to one definition of it.
Genetically altering a plant cell in a lab is different from cross breeding two species of the same genus. I work as a farmer and know very well the difference between a hybrid seed, an heirloom seed, and a gmo seed. They are all different and were engineered differently. Hybrid plant species are NOT the same thing as a genetically modified organism.
I personally believe this whole video, and many more like them are designed to blur the lines between the different designations of food, each classification is very different. Looking at GMO, Non-GMO, Natural, and Organic... we should understand that Non-GMO does not equate to Organic, and Natural does not equate to Non-GMO, and Natural... has very little governing over it beyond the application process to apply it to your packaged food. Please understand that every comment on these videos are not always just that individual's viewpoint, often they are placed there to ultimately create YOUR viewpoint, or at the very least revise it.
"Natural" is a totally meaningless term and is about to be banned from food labeling. Our foods stopped being 'natural' when we began breeding activities over 10,000 years ago. So you can eliminate that one. Perhaps what you meant was conventional, meaning modern non-GMO and non-organic. Most of our foods still fall under that category today.
Using gm within the same kingdom/species seems ok, like rice with rice but when you start adding genes from other species, than that seems a little more complicated/wrong
Good example danceluver156 but I am curious. Another thing I hear is that they are less nutritious? Like making them more resistant to pesticides and such takes away energy from building nutrition
Other plants have attributes that make the plant more versatile and more efficient because some plants of the same species do not have these attributes, they need to get them from a different plant.
I assume most would say "Natural" food would be any food that is healty and does not contain hazardus substances that some food might contain that is "placed inside" by humans for specific reasons (to last longer, etc).
In other terms natural might be just any food that is taken from garden without any additional processing after that (excluding cleaning it with water). But that might be less healthy in some cases, that proccessed food.
So, yea... People just dont want toxic stuff in their food. Simple as that.
Eaten "GMOs" all of my life and I'm perfectly healthy. People create a problem where here is none.
This natural craze might be as bad as the gluten-free fad of liars
But what about the study were they fed mice with gmo maize and they had severe health problems?
what about the studies on combination effects of GMO together? Singularity is one thing but recombination of molecular biology is another
Being anti-GMO is pretty much the same thing as being a creationist: deeply held set of beliefs that do their best to distort or reject contradicting evidence with fallacies and emotions to keep their own beliefs alive. I don't understand why they're so afraid of being wrong.
I am getting crazy when I think about these things. I don't know what to eat, I don't know what is safe, what is good to me... where to find organic products... Oh my god!!!
"Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." .. keep claim, you'll be fine.
I don't think we should use GMOs for most of our food supply. Reasons are:
- No Transparency: the general public doesn't get informed about the modifications
- There are several controversial modifications (antibiotic/ pesticide resistances)
--> more cemicals in foodchain -->see silent summer precedent case
- The free market seems to force more farmers to buy GMOs, but often the plants are not able to reproduce
--> dependant on companies
- We still don't fully understand the long term effects.
--> What if the reproduction inhibitor gene somehow gets (through unintended crossing) into many other plants?
Things like the saved Papaya and drought-resistant rice are very positive.
I still don't like the big companies that produce the GMO seeds, bacause they actively try to undermine scientific studies in this area. This is for example very obvious in the TED-Monsanto-agreement.
No difference between a GMO product and a product with a silent mutation, or a mutation that doesnt severely alter the phenotype
Natural and not is the wrong question.
This is a typical example of politics and social norms getting stuck when we ask the wrong question.
The real question is: Is this healthy for us and the environment? *That's* when you can start to have a real debate about all this.
this vid i so misleading
Why? Because you drank some bullshit artist's Kool-Aid and now you are having to come to terms with recognizing your own irrational biases?
Don't be so hard on yourself. For a lot of people, It's easy to get sucked in to the conspiracy world and it hurts people's feelings when they find out that they fell for a line of crap.
Just learn from it.
Really look at what you are saying and thinking and simply be prepared to show your work. Actually look at the science and the facts instead of letting others tell you how to think or feel or react.
Be skeptical but remember what that word really means in practical terms as it applies to the real world.
Simon WoodburyForget
No doubt... but that's human nature. A certain percentage of the population is going to do just that.
Simon WoodburyForget
Again, I don't disagree.
I think we are trying to teach people how to use their brains properly but it's a case of swimming against the current and that frustrates those of us who have a few more tools in our brainbox than most others.
Academia is always fighting against the clan. Humans are still very tribal and that still leads to suspicion of those who say different from what the tribal gut reaction or tradition is.
It's those regressive influences that must be overcome and it's a slow and grinding process... but, on the bright side, that task is becoming easier thanks to the arrival of the information age and it is accelerating so I am optimistic.
Simon WoodburyForget
OK.
Thanks for sharing.
All the best.
GMOs are probably safe, but you didn't touch on the moral issues, you brushed over agri-businesses questionable practices and you didn't mention the impacts of GMOs on genetic diversity. Those are some key reasons for the campaigns against them.
just eat what you want to all of the gmos are studied carefully in a lab and natural food is studied carfully in nature you chose what enters you're body and that's that
What's your basis for claiming GMOs are studied carefully in a lab? If by lab, you mean it's just released to the public and then scientists study the humans like guinea pigs, then yes, it's studied carefully in the "lab". Don't fool yourself into thinking the food industry or its regulators are being careful to protect the public.
+Jayyy Zeee no gmos have Ben around sense the late 19 hundreds so yes they have Ben studied so they have also Ben studied but now that the public finally knows about it they have just begun to study it a little more into depth
There is a huge difference between crops that are bred in a controlled setting to like species over time in order to achieve desirable results, and crops that have their genes spliced to unrelated species in a way that could never happen in nature. Why do you think there has been such an upswing in food allergies and other intestinal ailments over the last decade.
The only problem with GMO's is that I don't trust 2 or 3 companies producing all our food.
Put in some laws to make them less powerful and abide by the government (which isn't corrupt) and I am all for it.
Besides, with our every growing population (because anti conception doesn't exist in asia, middle east and africa) we need to yield more food from less energy input.
The only problem I have with GMOs is Monsanto and how dirty their business practice can be. People who are afraid of GMOs need to do research and not be so closed minded
there is nothing wrong with GMO, the problem is companies that misuse and abuse copyright.
Tighten the meaning of gmo, restrict any foods with seeds that can't be regrown and your done for now.
also even "organic" can be non heritage food meaning it can't be regrown which doesn't seem organic to me.
You should be more concerned with whether or not a food item is WHOLE, than "natural".
I'm totally fine with genetically modified food so long as they are tested to still provide the same or higher levels of vitamins our bodies have evolved with.
Maybe there should be different degrees: "degree 1 Natural", degree 2, degree 3. Anything else would be unnatural.
im clicking ''Click here to watch'' but the video stops.
MAYBE MAKE A LINK ? :(
Ok so GMO food is ok, but what effect go GMO crops have on bio diversity? One of the nice things about organic foods is that you get a wider variety of fancy produce, like purple potatoes and multi-colors carrots or kale and heirloom tomatoes... I don't think we've created GMO variants of those crop species, so should we be worried about those species of crop becoming extinct in favor of GMO'd super crops? Also, what's up with tomatoes that rot from the inside out? You get seeds sprouting from within a tomato that otherwise looks fresh.
i feel like a year ago there was a lot more people against GMO's, it's nice to see people have come around and are arguing in the comments for them, i feel like it used to be just me and a handful of other people
Everyone's an expert again in the comment section. I personally am PRO GMO. How many people have been saved from starvation by these modified food? Food are made affordable and available because of genetic modification too. What I'm against is these greedy corporation trying to control GMO.
I think the crux of the issue is very few multinational corporations controlling the broad food chain by holding the patents and not allowing anyone to use the seeds and technology without their permission. If the govt's take control of these things, probably crony capitalism would not be able to exploit the poor farmers and thereby regulating the whole supply chain.
Your post is false we have had patented seed both gmo and no gmo for 48 years. They do not exploit farmer! Farmers like me all over the world overwhelmingly freely choose gmo technology seed if that is an option.
thank god GMO foods (seedless watermelon, grapes, oranges, tangerines....)
Jeff, God created the Natural Food of seeds, not GMO
@@Kj73908 nothing you eat is in its natural state, everything has been altered by humans for millenia. Genetic engineering is no different.
This is how our crops look in their wild state: 66.media.tumblr.com/76606753f4d2a884d678f9c93c71f6d7/tumblr_n7lww3Ajnx1s6r1vho1_1280.png
@@intigfx Yes it is and when I mean Natural, Im talking about seeds.
@@Kj73908 And? They're still modified by humans. Do you eat those wild plants in the link I put above?
@@intigfx Wild plants were giving there traits from nature itself, not by forcing the genes
Genetically engineer food is good. Also "Modified" seems not good enough. We have been genetically modifying food since we farmed.
GMO's is a nuanced issue, and being that most people think in reductive partisan black/white terms such nuance makes their heads explode.
Fact is some GMO's may be fine for your health, some may not. Consumers need strong non-partisan research and oversight so as to be able to make well informed decisions on such an important issue.
Plants and animals bred selectively are genetically modified, too.
The main issues are also meats fish etc that get given antibiotics
Food is good. Food is food. Letting one negative stereotype predominate any kind of thinking, like: gmo causes disease, is the beginning of the end of our culture. Gotta see both sides to the club & see how they react whether by proofs or correaltions.
You forgot to mention BANANA'S. The banana's we have today are not actually real banana's. Real banana's died couple decades ago because of a disease before we knew of it, so they had to create a mutant to replace it.
Brain M, Who created the Mutant us or they?
GMO within a plant family is interesting study. GMO when you introduce non plant with animals is bleeding scare!
You didn't "explain GMOs". This is just a missleading pro GM ad and an insult to critical thinking.
Just get a blue light filter app on your phone or tablet and your good to go.
Im going with my gut, and it still poops which means Im alive.
GMOs Explained?? Why DNews don´t explain about the GMO Soya modification and the productive system.
this explains why tomatoes from the US are so dull flavored and huge compared to those in my country.
What about all of the chemicals used in growing food?
well if we have food shortage worldwide can't we just clone our food supply like fishes and cows
(Syringe Tomato) That is not how genetic engineering is done.
I didn't think that "Organic eating" would be the next religion.
My only concern on these 2 questions:
1. Is it possible for a Corporation, to manipulate food at a level that will harm or manipulate humans for the Sake of profit?
2. Is there a difference between crossing species like we did with dogs and some flowers (just by cross breading species) and Genetically modify (in a LAB) an animal or fruit? if there is a big difference, then I think people will have a clear difference between Natural and GMO
***** Thank you for your answer, I think most people fears are not about the Technology but the Human greed that can mess up things for the sake of profit, and Monsanto for example has been accused of lots of things
Ok, so for question 1) It's not that they are manipulating food to harm humans for the sake of profit, but manipulating food to get the greatest yield possible for the greatest profit, using methods that were developed independently over the 19th and 20th century. I cannot speak to the politics of it however, and any scientist would prefer to keep politics ad money away from science. 2) There essentially isn't a difference. Its genes from one species, put into another. We tend to forget that DNA and the genetic code is universal across all organisms. Genes code for proteins that confer certain traits such as resistance against low temperatures. Put that gene in an organism, and it may express the gene and become resistant to low temps. Thats essentially how insulin is synthesized by bacteria. The human insulin genes are inserted into a vector, then transformed into bacteria, who express the genes and create human insulin protein for us. Furthermore, this method has been occurring in nature for millions of years in both single celled and multicellular organisms by a process called horizontal gene transfer, where segments of DNA can essentially be picked up by an organism from its surroundings, or inserted by a virus or another bacteria, almost exactly like how we do it in the lab (thats where we got the method from). Horizontal gene transfer takes traits from one species, like antibiotic resistance, and puts it in another organism to confer that trait.
Prof. Potato Thank you for the answer, I didn't new much of the topic :-)
for me natural means if you take seed from plant and grow something from that same seed without changing its dna and adding stuff to soil and let it grow naturaly...problem is that when people plant seeds they always add fake compost and shit like that next to seed....that is not NATURAL...thats just chemistry shit. Food that we eat now taste like shit and is not even close to food that i ate 10 years ago. I can still remember smell and taste of fresh tomatoe from garden and fresh eggs from chicken that i used to eat every morning as kid....we never used salt or spices on food, but now u have to put ton of shit just to get any flavour on food....this world is fucked up.
another thing that I feel I've encountered in these online debates on GMO's that a lot of ppl do not have a good understanding of what they are, and want to include these human breed livestock, and produce with these laboratory DNA modified things. it's actually something I'd like to see more on.